We have an exclusive look at a new EarToTheGround.us poll conducted through the collaboration of ConservativeHQ.com and other individuals and organizations. The poll found Americans are deeply divided on the meaning of patriotism, the Constitution and how they viewed religion and prominent cultural brands and institutions.

The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Carpenter v. U.S. about whether the Fourth Amendment protects cell phone data held by the phone companies. The case has potentially major implications for privacy in the digital age. The original meaning of the Constitution can or should apply to today’s technology and media. Information is as dear and valuable as any paper or other possession, and seems to be compatible with the original meaning of "effect" in the Fourth Amendment.

Government attempts to silence or impede doubters as to gay marriage could have lasting negative effects, keeping the pot boiling and stifling attempts at reconciliation, should any be attempted in a climate of non-think. Especially is this the case when judges barge in, telling the unenlightened masses how wrong they are; how in need, maybe, of a Beijing-style song-and-dance routine to straighten out laggard thoughts.

The other day, in a 7-to-2 decision, the Supreme Court allowed Presidential Proclamation 9645, the third iteration of President Trump’s travel ban, to come fully into effect pending two legal challenges expected to be heard soon in the oft-overturned Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, it will buttress state power at the expense of the Bill of Rights. It would endorse coercion to force people to pretend to believe what they understand to be false. This would shatter the First Amendment. It would institutionalize a violent struggle, which cannot end, in which might decides what is right, in which the powerful can use the law to subjugate the weak.

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard the case of Christian baker Jack Philips and Masterpiece Cakeshop who refused to participate in a same-sex wedding. To force someone to do labor against their will is the very definition of slavery and that is what the radical homosexual lobby has been using courts across America to do.

If the election in Virginia this year is a harbinger of what is to come, GOP control of Congress could be washed away in a tidal wave in 2018. Hence, 2018 may be a do-or-die year to recapture the third branch of government for conservatism. Which is why that December 12 election in Alabama counts.

The Court not only dismissed as moot the challenge to the administration’s restrictions on travel to the United States by aliens from six countries. Critically, the Court also vacated lower-court rulings that had upheld injunctions against the travel restrictions.

There is only one reason this case is being heard now. It is that Democrats still haven't accepted their loss in the 2016 election. They can fall back on Hillary Clinton's victory in the national popular vote, but they lost the popular vote for the House of Representatives. Incapable, apparently, of accepting that their ideas and candidates have fallen short, they are peddling to their demoralized followers the notion that they lost because of gerrymandering.

Without a flood of plundered money, unions will be a diminished force, and their power over Democratic politicians will likewise decline. As polling increasingly shows bipartisan support for school choice, especially for the type of program in Florida, politicians are likely to swing that way too. They go where they can get votes.

It is up to state lawmakers to introduce legislation that allows for non-discriminatory school voucher programs, and all other measures that provide parents with choice in education. Education equality is long overdue. Those who seek to keep the poor in their place—by condemning innocent minority children to failed public schools in the inner-city—are the big losers.

The Supreme Court’s two rulings mark a welcome setback to the open borders crowd and those secular progressives who view the expression of any religious view in the public square the way a vampire views a cross. It has been a curiosity of mine that some people believe using God’s name as a curse word is speech protected by the Constitution, while claiming the opposite when it comes to speaking well of the Deity at a commencement ceremony.

The Framers of the Constitution did not reserve the right of self-defense to those elite members of society whose position or wealth provides them with armed guards. When the courts fail to enforce the promises of the Constitution, then it is up to the legislature to act. We urge Congress to take up and pass a national concealed carry bill.

When push comes to shove, the Trump administration does not really grasp what “radical Islam” is and would have no stomach for a battle over factoring sharia-supremacist ideology into account when vetting aliens who seek to enter our country. I’d love to be wrong. But if I’m right, we will eventually remember the extensive, strident travel-ban litigation as much ado about nothing.

States like Mississippi and Alabama are pioneering the way to navigate these complex religious freedom issues, and this fall, the Supreme Court will weigh in on the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Religious freedom is in the balance, and with Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court leans to the Right. There is reason to hope that the First Amendment will win the day.

Today's Supreme Court ruling means that the administration may impose a 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States, with certain exceptions noted by the court.

If the lower courts are uniformly getting it wrong and failing to follow the Supreme Court’s binding precedents on an issue, that is a more than sufficient reason to take up a case. In fact, the court has an obligation to do so in order to prevent chaos in the legal system resulting from lower courts refusing to follow the law. That is especially true when the judicial branch is interfering with the president’s prerogatives in the national security and immigration area.

Thursday afternoon, Justice Gorsuch will ceremonially take the chair Scalia occupied for almost 30 years. At his confirmation hearing, he called Scalia a mentor who “reminded us that words matter—that the judge’s job is to follow the words that are in the law, not replace them with those that aren’t.” Antonin Scalia changed the way mainstream judges think about their role in a representative democracy. On this investiture day, the Scalia tradition boasts a worthy inheritor.

Thirty-two states require some form of ID in voting, although not all of them require a photo ID. And states are continuing to pass such needed laws. Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad just signed into law a new voter ID law in his state. State legislators and the public should not allow the 4th Circuit decision to deter them from taking the steps necessary—including commonsense voter ID requirements—to improve the integrity of our elections.

Whoever the next departing justice is, President Trump must make sure the next Supreme Court justice is someone who believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights 100 percent of the time, not just when it is convenient to achieve the particular policy goal the justice wants. And President Trump will need someone who doesn't care what the New York Times, MSNBC, or the Washington cocktail circuit says about him or her.